In re Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of Jac.B.

• Decision Date: 22 August 2014
• Docket Number: 33A01-1401-JT-40
• Parties: IN RE THE TERMINATION OF THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP OF Jac.B., Je.B., Jam.B., M.H., and A.B. (Minor Children) and B.B. (Mother), Appellant-Respondent, v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SERVICES, Appellee-Petitioner.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

IN RE THE TERMINATION OF THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP OF Jac.B., Je.B., Jam.B., M.H., and A.B. (Minor Children) and B.B. (Mother), Appellant-Respondent, v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SERVICES, Appellee-Petitioner.

No. 33A01-1401-JT-40

Court of Appeals of Indiana

August 22, 2014

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

APPEAL FROM THE HENRY CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable Mary G. Willis Judge Cause Nos. 33C01-1307-JT-14, -15, -16, -17, and -18

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: JOHN T. WILSON Anderson, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana ROBERT J. HENKE CHRISTINE REDELMAN Deputy Attorneys General Indianapolis, Indiana

MEMORANDUM DECISION

CRONE Judge

Case Summary

B.B. ("Mother") appeals the trial court's termination of her parental rights to her five children: Jac.B., Je.B., Jam.B., M.H., and A.B. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

In its termination order regarding Jac.B., Je.B., and Jam.B., issued December 26, 2013, the trial court made the following relevant findings and conclusions:^[1]

Findings of Fact

A. Facts relating to initial removal of Child, CHINS adjudication & Dispositional Order

2. On May 2, 2003 the child, Jac.B., was born; on October 3 2004 the child, Je.B., was born; on January 25, 2006 the child, Jam.B., was born (known collectively hereinafter as "the children").

3. R.B. is the father of the Children.

4. Mother is the mother of the Children.

5. On or about March 9, 2007, the Children and the parents R.B. (hereinafter "Father") and Mother became involved with DCS [the Department of Child Services] when DCS assessed a report that the children were being neglected by their parents. More specifically, the facts are that the parents engaged in an act of domestic violence and were homeless.

6. On or about March 9, 2007 Father and Mother entered into a voluntary program of informal adjustment approved by the Court on March 14, 2007. The Father received anger management training and the Father and Mother were to follow recommendations regarding parenting. The informal adjustment closed by court order[] on September 6, 2007.

7. On or about November 21, 2008 Father and Mother became involved with DCS for a second time when DCS assessed a report that the children witnessed an incident of domestic violence between Mother and her live in boyfriend that required Mother to receive medical attention. Father's whereabouts were unknown and he was believed to be homeless. The children were detained. The home was cluttered and did not appear to have sufficient bedding for the children.

8. On December 1, 2008, the children were adjudicated Children in Need of Services. A Dispositional decree was entered on December 23, 2008 and Mother participated in individual counseling services until case closure on May 21 2009. Father was never located.

9. On or about January 26, 2010 Father and Mother became involved with DCS for a third time when DCS assessed a report that the children's younger sibling, M.H., born January 26, 2010 to Mother and her current husband, P.H., ^[2] was born drug positive for the presence of marijuana. Mother tested positive for the presence of marijuana at the time she gave birth to M.H. Mother entered into an informal adjustment approved by the Court on February 25, 2010. The informal adjustment closed on August 25, 2010, following completion of services by Mother.

10. On or about December 9, 2011, Father and Mother became involved with DCS for a fourth time when DCS assessed a report that the family was homeless and Mother tested positive for MDPV (bath salts). Father's whereabouts were unknown. Mother entered into an informal adjustment program approved by the Court on December 21, 2011 wherein she agreed to participate in a parenting assessment and recommended services as well as a substance abuse assessment and recommended services.

11. The children and M.H. were detained on or about January 30, 2012 following Mother's failure to engage in agreed upon services and Mother's failure to maintain housing for the children. A Child in Need of Services petition was filed on February 1, 2012 and the children were adjudicated children in need of services on February 3, 2012 following Mother's admission that she was homeless and unable to provide basic needs for the children. Father failed to appear and default judgment [was] made against him. The informal adjustment discharged unsuccessfully after the children were detained.

12. On February 24, 2012 [a] dispositional order was entered. Mother was directed to participate in parenting assessment and recommended services, substance abuse assessment and recommended services, random drug screens, and psychological evaluation and recommended services and to maintain stable and suitable housing and source of income. Father failed to appear.

14. On November 9, 2012, Mother gave birth to a fifth child, A.B. Paternity of the child was not established at birth. The child was detained on or about November 13, 2012. A Child in Need of Services petition was filed on November 14, 2012 and the child was adjudicated a child in need of services on December 7, 2012 following Mother's admission that at the time of the child's birth she had unstable housing and her mental health condition impaired her ability to adequately care for the infant. Mother further admitted that her remaining four children remained placed outside of her care.

15. On January 4, 2013, a dispositional order was issued as to the child A.B. Mother was directed to participate in home based counseling, home based case work, a psychological evaluation and recommended services, a parenting assessment and recommended services, and to abstain from the use of drugs, obtain stable and suitable housing and obtain a legal source of income.

B. Facts relating to Child's continued removal from parent's home and care; reasonable probability of parent not remedying reasons for removal, threat to child's wellbeing, child's best interest, & DCS plan for care and treatment

1. After formal removal of children per the Dispositional Decree of February 24, 2012, the children were never returned to parents' care and custody.

[Findings 2 through 5 relate to Father's lack of contact with children, failure to pay child support, felony criminal convictions, incarceration, and failure to maintain contact with DCS.]

6. Mother's participation in home based case management and individual counseling services was inconsistent and complicated by mood instability. Mother's housing situation improved but did not remain stable during the review period as she relocated five times. Mother's housing at the time of fact finding belonged to a third party who paid all the expenses and was dependent upon this relationship continuing.

7. On July 26, 2013, the Court in the underlying Child in Need of Services case issued an order that reunification efforts cease and authorized the filing of the petition for termination of parent child relationship.

8. No service provider was ever able to recommend that Father or Mother … be reunified with their Children. Val Saylor, Mother's therapist, indicated Mother may have been able to provide care for her youngest child alone provided that Mother continued to receive services and supervision by DCS.

9. Tim Davis provided intensive home based case management services including supervised visitation, parenting skills education, employment and housing assistance to Mother. He provided services three to four hours per week from January, 2013 to July, 2013. During that time, Mother lived at four different addresses. Mother reported to him that she was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and agoraphobia. He observed during visits that Mother was comfortable with her daughters but less comfortable with her sons. Although Mother was cooperative and eager to learn she was unsuccessful in obtaining employment or establishing stable housing.

10. Heather Smith provided home based case management services including supervised visitation, parenting skills education, housing and employment assistance to Mother two times per week from February, 2012 to July, 2013.… Mother always attended her supervised visits but had "a hard time" keeping her individual appointments with Ms. Smith. Mother failed to engage with the children during visits. Ms. Smith observed that initially Mother's sons sought physical affection from Mother but this subsided and the children rarely acknowledged Mother at later visits. Mother demonstrated a caring attitude toward the children but was overwhelmed by parenting responsibilities for her five children. Mother exhibited a high stress level during visitation. Mother failed to complete five different appointments arranged by Ms. Smith to begin the process of applying for disability. Ms. Smith believed that at the time of fact finding Mother was still unable to resume caretaking responsibilities for the children due to her lack of stable housing, lack of income, and mental health concerns.

11. Val Saylor provided individual therapy for Mother from January 2012 to June 2013. Mother was diagnosed by Mr. Saylor with cannabis dependence, opiate abuse, generalized anxiety and borderline personality disorder. He described Mother's attendance as "up and down." His monthly attendance summary reflected a significant number of missed appointments. Mr. Saylor observed an improvement in Mother's mental health based upon her ability to self-soothe during periods of anxiety.

12. Mother acknowledged that she has been provided services by DCS in the underlying Child in Need of Services case, and four prior cases. Mother stated that she has benefitted from the services of providers Val Saylor, Tim Davis and Heather Smith. She believes she is more stable emotionally, mentally and physically. Mot

...